TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the impugned assessment completed in individual capacity. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 23,38,396/- on wrong and infirm interpretation of facts. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground(s) of appeal before and or at the time of hearing. Assessment year : 2004-05: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessee order u/s 153A /143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as none of the provisions of section 132(1)(a)(b) and (c ) are applicable in case of the appellant. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned assessment completed in individual capacity. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground(s) of appeal before and or at the time of hearing. Assessment year : 2005-06: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessee order u/s 153A /143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as none of the provisions of section 132(1)(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned assessment completed in individual capacity. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,94,130/- on account of low household expenses. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of alleged business income on estimated basis. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground(s) of appeal before and or at the time of hearing. Assessment year : 2009-10: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessee order u/s 153A /143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as none of the provisions of section 132(1)(a)(b) and (c ) are applicable in case of the appellant. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned assessment completed in individual capacity. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....um income on this investment is not the sole purpose of the assessee, rather the safety is the main criteria for such investment." 3. The Assessing Officer, however, held that assessee did not provide any evidence with respect to dates and years in which the investments and advances were made by the assessee and therefore in the absence of any supporting evidence, the Assessing Officer treated the entire amount of Rs. 23,38,396/- as his unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and made addition thereof. 4. The Assessing Officer further observed from the photo copy of a diary maintained by the assessee that for the period 1.11.2007 to 19.7.2008 the assessee had shown net income at the end of each month out of which the income was shown to have been distributed among three persons namely Shri Jagdish, Shri Bhuwan and the assessee and therefore the assessee was asked vide letter dated 13.12.2010 to explain as to why the income from the said firm should not be estimated on the basis of income distributed in each month in which the income varied from Rs. 23,600/- to Rs. 1,12,700/- for the period November, 2007 to June, 2008. The assessee in reply submitted that he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usiness income. 9. In assessment year 2008-09, similar addition of Rs. 1,91,250/- was made on account of low household drawings and Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of estimated business income. 10. In assessment year 2009-10, the addition on account of low household drawings was made at Rs. 1,96,664/- whereas the business income was estimated at Rs. 3,06,000/-. 11. Aggrieved with the assessment order the assessee filed appeals before Ld CIT(A). The Ld CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 23,38,396/- in assessment year 2003-04 on account of failure of the assessee to prove the veracity of statement of affairs as on 31.3.2003. However, with respect to other additions of Rs. 2,40,000/- on account of estimation of business income, the Ld CIT(A) deleted the addition and restricted the business income to Rs. 46,800/- as declared by assessee in pursuance of notice u/s 153A. 12. In the year 2004-05, the Ld CIT(A) deleted the estimation of business income of Rs. 2,40,000/- and accepted the business income declared at Rs. 49,120/-. Further he deleted the addition of Rs. 4,20,000/- which was made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in the plot. 13. As regards a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a single year. 20. Further arguing for assessment year 2003-04 the Ld AR submitted that Ld CIT(A)'s action on confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of addition of all assets was not justified as all assets were purchased by the assessee in earlier years. In this respect our attention was invited to paper book page 102 & 103 wherein copy of letter written by Ld AR of assessee to Assessing Officer was placed in which the Ld AR had submitted that investments were belonging to earlier years.. Our attention was also invited to paper book page 104 wherein the statement of affairs as on 31.3.2002 was placed and further we were taken to paper book page 4 where a statement of affairs as on 31.3.2003 was placed. Our attention was invited to jewellery and investment and loans and advances account as appearing at the same figure as on 31.3.2002 & 31.3.2003 and in view of the above it was argued that the assets belonged to earlier years instead of assessment year under consideration. In support of his argument our attention was invited to paper book page 5 & 6 where copies of bills of jewllery dated 19.8.2001 and 27.5.2001 was placed and similarly our attenti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. 149 ITR 127 (Mad.). in the case of CIT v. KSM Guruswamy Nadar & Sons. 24. The Ld DR, on the other hand, submitted that for assessment year 2003-04 onus was on the assessee to prove statement of affairs as on 31.3.2002 and in this respect he read from para 4.7 of Ld CIT(A)'s order and argued that statement of affairs submitted before ld CIT(A) was also not supported by evidences in respect of investments as assessee had not filed returns for earlier years and further books of accounts for earlier years were not provided to Assessing Officer or Ld CIT(A). Therefore, he argued that in the absence of explanation of source of investments in earlier years the addition on account of unexplained investments was justified. Regarding addition on account of low household withdrawals the Ld DR submitted that withdrawals were too low and therefore on the basis of surrounding circumstances Ld Assessing Officer estimated the household expenses approximately and further argued that for making addition there is no requirement of incriminating material u/s 153A and reliance in support of his arguments was placed on the following case laws:- 1. Mital Ice & Cold Storage v. CIT 25 Taxmann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....file gift deed if any from father of assessee and bank statements and income tax returns for the earlier years which the assessee did not reply. In reply to remand report, the Ld AR submitted that all queries made by the Assessing Officer and replies given by the assessee were already on the file of the Assessing Officer as these replies were given by the appellant during assessment proceedings itself and therefore it was submitted that the Assessing Officer's finding that it was difficult to verify the capacity and genuineness of transaction should not be accepted as the Assessing Officer was not able to find anything wrong or missing from third party evidence. From the facts and circumstances of the entire case, we find that the assessee had tried to explain the investment in earlier years in the form of confirmations/evidences from third parties which the Assessing Officer did not consider as assessee was not able to explain the source of these investments. The Assessing Officer without going through the third party evidences filed by the assessee continued to direct assessee to file proofs of income tax returns of earlier years in support of his acquiring assets ion earlier....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar 2005-06 & 2006-07 and Rs. 18,000/- p.m. in assessment year 2007-08 & 2008-09 and further Rs. 20,000/- p.m. in assessment year 2009-10 which have been estimated on a very reasonable basis keeping in view the fact that assessee had two school going children and had reasonable investments in assets. The case law of Raj Kumar Jain v. ACIT 50 ITD1 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present cases as in that case, the figure of household expenses of assessee for earlier years were available with the Department and Department had accepted that figure in earlier years therefore it was held in that case that household expenses without any material could not be estimated without considering household expenses in earlier years. In the other case law of Shri G.S. Bhatia 59 TTJ 91 relied upon by Ld AR the conclusion was that unless and until it is established with evidence that it was only the assessee who had incurred all the household expenses, revenue was not justified in invoking the deeming provision of section 69A and whereas in the present case, Ld AR did not bring to our notice any drawings made by wife of assessee for contribution to household expenses. Therefore....